A multi-decade record of high-quality fCO2 data in version 3 of the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas (SOCAT)
University of East Anglia1, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research2, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen3, University of Paris4, University of Exeter5, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences6, University of Colorado Boulder7, Earth System Research Laboratory8, Columbia University9, Cooperative Research Centre10, Hobart Corporation11, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory12, University of Miami13, University of Southampton14, Federal University of Pernambuco15, State Oceanic Administration16, University of Gothenburg17, University of Alaska Fairbanks18, Norwegian Polar Institute19, University of Perpignan20, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research21, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation22, University of Hawaii at Manoa23, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research24, University of New Hampshire25, Institut de recherche pour le développement26, Plymouth Marine Laboratory27, Oak Ridge National Laboratory28, University of the Aegean29, Max Planck Society30, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology31, United States Geological Survey32, Japan Meteorological Agency33, Leibniz Association34, World Meteorological Organization35, National University of Ireland, Galway36
TL;DR: This ESSD "living data" publication documents the methods and data sets used for the assembly of this new version of the SOCAT data collection and compares these with those used for earlier versions of the data collection.
Abstract: . The Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas (SOCAT) is a synthesis of quality-controlled fCO2 (fugacity of carbon dioxide) values for the global surface oceans and coastal seas with regular updates. Version 3 of SOCAT has 14.7 million fCO2 values from 3646 data sets covering the years 1957 to 2014. This latest version has an additional 4.6 million fCO2 values relative to version 2 and extends the record from 2011 to 2014. Version 3 also significantly increases the data availability for 2005 to 2013. SOCAT has an average of approximately 1.2 million surface water fCO2 values per year for the years 2006 to 2012. Quality and documentation of the data has improved. A new feature is the data set quality control (QC) flag of E for data from alternative sensors and platforms. The accuracy of surface water fCO2 has been defined for all data set QC flags. Automated range checking has been carried out for all data sets during their upload into SOCAT. The upgrade of the interactive Data Set Viewer (previously known as the Cruise Data Viewer) allows better interrogation of the SOCAT data collection and rapid creation of high-quality figures for scientific presentations. Automated data upload has been launched for version 4 and will enable more frequent SOCAT releases in the future. High-profile scientific applications of SOCAT include quantification of the ocean sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide and its long-term variation, detection of ocean acidification, as well as evaluation of coupled-climate and ocean-only biogeochemical models. Users of SOCAT data products are urged to acknowledge the contribution of data providers, as stated in the SOCAT Fair Data Use Statement. This ESSD (Earth System Science Data) "living data" publication documents the methods and data sets used for the assembly of this new version of the SOCAT data collection and compares these with those used for earlier versions of the data collection (Pfeil et al., 2013; Sabine et al., 2013; Bakker et al., 2014). Individual data set files, included in the synthesis product, can be downloaded here: doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.849770 . The gridded products are available here: doi:10.3334/CDIAC/OTG.SOCAT_V3_GRID .
Citations
More filters
École Normale Supérieure1, University of Exeter2, Norwich Research Park3, University of Groningen4, Wageningen University and Research Centre5, Max Planck Society6, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, Université Paris-Saclay9, Stanford University10, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration11, National Institute for Space Research12, Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences13, University of Southampton14, PSL Research University15, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology16, National Institute for Environmental Studies17, University of Maryland, College Park18, University of Leeds19, International Institute of Minnesota20, Flanders Marine Institute21, ETH Zurich22, University of East Anglia23, German Aerospace Center24, Woods Hole Research Center25, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign26, University of Toulouse27, Japan Meteorological Agency28, Plymouth Marine Laboratory29, University of Paris30, Hobart Corporation31, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research32, Tsinghua University33, National Center for Atmospheric Research34, Appalachian State University35, University of Colorado Boulder36, University of Washington37, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory38, Princeton University39, Met Office40, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences41, Auburn University42, University of Tasmania43, VU University Amsterdam44, Oak Ridge National Laboratory45, Sun Yat-sen University46, Nanjing University47
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quere et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).
1,764 citations
Cites background or methods from "A multi-decade record of high-quali..."
...Specifically, the sea–air CO2 fluxes and the pCO2 field are numerically linked to each other and to the spatio-temporal field of ocean-internal carbon sources/sinks through process parameterizations, and the ocean-internal sources/sink field is then fit to the SOCATv2020 pCO2 data (Bakker et al., 2020)....
[...]
...Attribution of fCO2 measurements for the year 2019 included in SOCATv2020 (Bakker et al., 2016, 2020) to inform ocean pCO2-based flux products....
[...]
...The GOBMs and flux products have been further evaluated using the fugacity of sea surface CO2 (fCO2) from the SOCAT v2020 database (Bakker et al., 2016, 2020)....
[...]
...…sparse data coverage of pCO2 observations in the Southern compared to the Northern Hemisphere (e.g. Takahashi et al., 2009) continues to exist (Bakker et al., 2016, 2020) and to lead to substantially higher uncertainty in the SOCEAN estimate for the Southern Hemisphere (Watson et al., 2020)....
[...]
...The measurements underlying the surface pCO2 maps are from the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas version 2020 (SOCATv2020; Bakker et al., 2020), which is an update of version 3 (Bakker et al., 2016) and contains qualitycontrolled data through 2019 (see data attribution Table A5)....
[...]
University of East Anglia1, University of Exeter2, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research3, Max Planck Society4, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation6, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology7, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies8, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory9, École Normale Supérieure10, Centre national de la recherche scientifique11, University of Maryland, College Park12, University of Virginia13, Flanders Marine Institute14, Oak Ridge National Laboratory15, Woods Hole Research Center16, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign17, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen18, Met Office19, University of California, San Diego20, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency21, Utrecht University22, University of Paris23, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research24, Tsinghua University25, National Center for Atmospheric Research26, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research27, National Institute for Environmental Studies28, Hobart Corporation29, Cooperative Research Centre30, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology31, University of Groningen32, Wageningen University and Research Centre33, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research34, Goddard Space Flight Center35, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research36, Princeton University37, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences38, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration39, Auburn University40, Food and Agriculture Organization41, VU University Amsterdam42
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: . Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide
( CO2 ) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere,
ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is
important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the
development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we
describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of
the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2
emissions ( EFF ) are based on energy statistics and cement
production data, while emissions from land use and land-use change ( ELUC ),
mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and
bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured
directly and its growth rate ( GATM ) is computed from the annual
changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink ( SOCEAN )
and terrestrial CO2 sink ( SLAND ) are estimated with
global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon
budget imbalance ( BIM ), the difference between the estimated
total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and
terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of
the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ . For the last decade available (2008–2017), EFF was
9.4±0.5 GtC yr −1 , ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr −1 ,
SOCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr −1 , with a budget imbalance BIM of
0.5 GtC yr −1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated
sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 %
and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr −1 . Also for 2017,
ELUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr −1 , SOCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr −1 ,
with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric
CO2 concentration reached 405.0±0.1 ppm averaged over 2017.
For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed
growth in EFF of + 2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based
on national emission projections for China, the US, the EU, and India and
projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the
carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. The analysis
presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the
global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959–2017,
but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr −1 persist for the representation
of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison
among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of
observations show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change
emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among the different methods on
the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics,
and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean
models, originating outside the tropics. This living data update documents
changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget
and the progress in understanding the global carbon cycle compared with
previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2018, 2016,
2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from
https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2018 .
1,458 citations
Cites methods from "A multi-decade record of high-quali..."
...The measurements are from the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas version 6, which is an update of version 3 (Bakker et al., 2016) and contains qualitycontrolled data until 2017 (see data attribution Table A4)....
[...]
University of East Anglia1, University of Oslo2, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation3, University of Exeter4, Oak Ridge National Laboratory5, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration6, Woods Hole Research Center7, University of California, San Diego8, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology9, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies10, Centre national de la recherche scientifique11, University of Maryland, College Park12, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research13, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution14, Flanders Marine Institute15, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research16, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency17, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign18, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences19, Max Planck Society20, University of Paris21, Hobart Corporation22, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research23, University of Bern24, National Center for Atmospheric Research25, University of Miami26, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research27, University of Colorado Boulder28, National Institute for Environmental Studies29, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean30, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen31, Goddard Space Flight Center32, Montana State University33, University of New Hampshire34, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research35, Imperial College London36, Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory37, Auburn University38, Wageningen University and Research Centre39, VU University Amsterdam40, Met Office41
TL;DR: In this article, the authors quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community.
Abstract: . Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates and consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in SOCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models. We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ, reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2006–2015), EFF was 9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.5 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. For year 2015 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, showing a slowdown in growth of these emissions compared to the average growth of 1.8 % yr−1 that took place during 2006–2015. Also, for 2015, ELUC was 1.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, GATM was 6.3 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 1.9 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1. GATM was higher in 2015 compared to the past decade (2006–2015), reflecting a smaller SLAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 399.4 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2015. For 2016, preliminary data indicate the continuation of low growth in EFF with +0.2 % (range of −1.0 to +1.8 %) based on national emissions projections for China and USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. In spite of the low growth of EFF in 2016, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to be relatively high because of the persistence of the smaller residual terrestrial sink (SLAND) in response to El Nino conditions of 2015–2016. From this projection of EFF and assumed constant ELUC for 2016, cumulative emissions of CO2 will reach 565 ± 55 GtC (2075 ± 205 GtCO2) for 1870–2016, about 75 % from EFF and 25 % from ELUC. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center ( doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2016 ).
1,224 citations
École Normale Supérieure1, University of Exeter2, Norwich Research Park3, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research4, University of Groningen5, Wageningen University and Research Centre6, Max Planck Society7, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich8, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation9, Centre national de la recherche scientifique10, Stanford University11, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology12, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory13, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies14, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research15, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen16, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology17, University of Maryland, College Park18, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research19, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration20, Appalachian State University21, Flanders Marine Institute22, Augsburg College23, ETH Zurich24, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences25, University of East Anglia26, Woods Hole Research Center27, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign28, University of Hong Kong29, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency30, Utrecht University31, University of Paris32, University of Tasmania33, Hobart Corporation34, University of Bern35, National Center for Atmospheric Research36, University of Reading37, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences38, National Institute for Environmental Studies39, Russian Academy of Sciences40, Goddard Space Flight Center41, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research42, Princeton University43, Met Office44, Lund University45, Auburn University46, Food and Agriculture Organization47, VU University Amsterdam48
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land use change, and show that the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle.
Abstract: . Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) emissions and
their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere
– the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the
global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and
project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to
quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their
uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions ( EFF ) are based on energy
statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change
( ELUC ), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change
data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured
directly and its growth rate ( GATM ) is computed from the annual changes
in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink ( SOCEAN ) and terrestrial
CO2 sink ( SLAND ) are estimated with global process models
constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance
( BIM ), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the
estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a
measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon
cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ . For the last
decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr −1 ,
ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr −1 ( 2.3±0.01 ppm yr −1 ), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr −1 , with a budget
imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr −1 indicating overestimated emissions
and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was
about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr −1 , reaching 10 GtC yr −1 for the first time in history,
ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , for total anthropogenic
CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr −1 ( 42.5±3.3 GtCO2 ). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr −1 ( 2.4±0.1 ppm yr −1 ), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of
−0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the
USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected
for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of
the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global
carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but
discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr −1 persist for the representation of
semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among
individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations
shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions
over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different
methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern
extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2
variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update
documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global
carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle
compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et
al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by
this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein
et al., 2019).
981 citations
University of East Anglia1, University of Exeter2, Max Planck Society3, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation4, Stanford University5, Oak Ridge National Laboratory6, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration7, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies8, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory9, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research10, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen11, Met Office12, École Normale Supérieure13, Centre national de la recherche scientifique14, University of Maryland, College Park15, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research16, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis17, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research18, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution19, University of New Hampshire20, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign21, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology22, University of California, San Diego23, Utrecht University24, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency25, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences26, University of Paris27, Hobart Corporation28, Cooperative Research Centre29, University of Bern30, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research31, National Center for Atmospheric Research32, University of Miami33, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research34, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research35, National Institute for Environmental Studies36, Spanish National Research Council37, Goddard Space Flight Center38, Montana State University39, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research40, University of Delaware41, Auburn University42, Food and Agriculture Organization43, Wageningen University and Research Centre44, VU University Amsterdam45, University of Groningen46
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, and the resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM) is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle.
Abstract: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the "global carbon budget" – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land-cover change data and bookkeeping models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2007–2016), EFF was 9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.3 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.7 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.0 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.6 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For year 2016 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1. Also for 2016, ELUC was 1.3 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM was 6.1 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 2.7 ± 1.0 GtC yr−1, with a small BIM of −0.3 GtC. GATM continued to be higher in 2016 compared to the past decade (2007–2016), reflecting in part the high fossil emissions and the small SLAND consistent with El Nino conditions. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 402.8 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2016. For 2017, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed growth in EFF of +2.0 % (range of 0.8 to 3.0 %) based on national emissions projections for China, USA, and India, and projections of gross domestic product (GDP) corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2017 (GCP, 2017).
884 citations
Cites methods from "A multi-decade record of high-quali..."
...The measurements are from the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas version 5, which is an update of version 3 (Bakker et al., 2016) and contains qualitycontrolled data to 2016 (see data attribution Table A4)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: The NCEP/NCAR 40-yr reanalysis uses a frozen state-of-the-art global data assimilation system and a database as complete as possible, except that the horizontal resolution is T62 (about 210 km) as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The NCEP and NCAR are cooperating in a project (denoted “reanalysis”) to produce a 40-year record of global analyses of atmospheric fields in support of the needs of the research and climate monitoring communities. This effort involves the recovery of land surface, ship, rawinsonde, pibal, aircraft, satellite, and other data; quality controlling and assimilating these data with a data assimilation system that is kept unchanged over the reanalysis period 1957–96. This eliminates perceived climate jumps associated with changes in the data assimilation system. The NCEP/NCAR 40-yr reanalysis uses a frozen state-of-the-art global data assimilation system and a database as complete as possible. The data assimilation and the model used are identical to the global system implemented operationally at the NCEP on 11 January 1995, except that the horizontal resolution is T62 (about 210 km). The database has been enhanced with many sources of observations not available in real time for operations, provided b...
28,145 citations
TL;DR: 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle are used to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.
Abstract: Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.
4,244 citations
TL;DR: The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known; both are high priorities for future research as mentioned in this paper, and both are only imperfect analogs to current conditions.
Abstract: Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. The process of ocean acidification is well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century unless future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically. Acidification alters seawater chemical speciation and biogeochemical cycles of many elements and compounds. One well-known effect is the lowering of calcium carbonate saturation states, which impacts shell-forming marine organisms from plankton to benthic molluscs, echinoderms, and corals. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory experiments under high-CO2 conditions. Ocean acidification also causes an increase in carbon fixation rates in some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying). The potential for marine organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well known; both are high priorities for future research. Although ocean pH has varied in the geological past, paleo-events may be only imperfect analogs to current conditions.
2,995 citations
01 Jan 2007
TL;DR: The Guide to best practices for ocean CO2 measurements can be found in this paper, along with a detailed discussion of the recommended standard operating procedures (SOPs) for ocean carbon dioxide measurements.
Abstract: CHAP 1 - Introduction to the Guide
CHAP 2 - Solution chemistry of carbon dioxide in sea water
CHAP 3 - Quality assurance
CHAP 4 - Recommended standard operating procedures (SOPs)
SOP 1 - Water sampling for the parameters of the oceanic carbon dioxide system
SOP 2 - Determination of total dissolved inorganic carbon in sea water
SOP 3a - Determination of total alkalinity in sea water using a closed-cell titration
SOP 3b - Determination of total alkalinity in sea water using an open-cell titration
SOP 4 - Determination of p(CO2) in air that is in equilibrium with a discrete sample of sea water
SOP 5 - Determination of p(CO2) in air that is in equilibrium with a continuous stream of sea water
SOP 6a - Determination of the pH of sea water using a glass/reference electrode cell
SOP 6b - Determination of the pH of sea water using the indicator dye m-cresol purple
SOP 7 - Determination of dissolved organic carbon and total dissolved nitrogen in sea water
SOP 7 en Espanol - Determinacion de carbono organico disuelto y nitrogeno total disuelto en agua de mar
SOP 11 - Gravimetric calibration of the volume of a gas loop using water
SOP 12 - Gravimetric calibration of volume delivered using water
SOP 13 - Gravimetric calibration of volume contained using water
SOP 14 - Procedure for preparing sodium carbonate solutions for the calibration of coulometric CT measurements
SOP 21 - Applying air buoyancy corrections
SOP 22 - Preparation of control charts
SOP 23 - Statistical techniques used in quality assessment
SOP 24 - Calculation of the fugacity of carbon dioxide in the pure gas or in air
CHAP 5 - Physical and thermodynamic data
Errata - to the hard copy of the Guide to best practices for ocean CO2 measurements
2,183 citations
TL;DR: The most comprehensive meta-analysis to date by synthesizing the results of 228 studies examining biological responses to ocean acidification reveals decreased survival, calcification, growth, development and abundance in response to acidification, and suggests that other factors, such as nutritional status or source population, could cause substantial variation in organisms' responses.
Abstract: Ocean acidification represents a threat to marine species worldwide, and forecasting the ecological impacts of acidification is a high priority for science, management, and policy. As research on the topic expands at an exponential rate, a comprehensive understanding of the variability in organisms' responses and corresponding levels of certainty is necessary to forecast the ecological effects. Here, we perform the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date by synthesizing the results of 228 studies examining biological responses to ocean acidification. The results reveal decreased survival, calcification, growth, development and abundance in response to acidification when the broad range of marine organisms is pooled together. However, the magnitude of these responses varies among taxonomic groups, suggesting there is some predictable trait-based variation in sensitivity, despite the investigation of approximately 100 new species in recent research. The results also reveal an enhanced sensitivity of mollusk larvae, but suggest that an enhanced sensitivity of early life history stages is not universal across all taxonomic groups. In addition, the variability in species' responses is enhanced when they are exposed to acidification in multi-species assemblages, suggesting that it is important to consider indirect effects and exercise caution when forecasting abundance patterns from single-species laboratory experiments. Furthermore, the results suggest that other factors, such as nutritional status or source population, could cause substantial variation in organisms' responses. Last, the results highlight a trend towards enhanced sensitivity to acidification when taxa are concurrently exposed to elevated seawater temperature.
1,787 citations
"A multi-decade record of high-quali..." refers background in this paper
...These changes in ocean chemistry are expected to affect key physiological processes of marine organisms, such as calcification, growth, development and survival (Kroeker et al., 2013)....
[...]